By MARTIN ZEILIG After reading Who’s Behind the Hard Right in Canada? A Reference Guide to Canada’s Disinformation Network — a report published by the Canadian AntiHate Network that maps the organizations, influencers, and funding pipelines driving coordinated right wing disinformation across the country — I’m left with a blunt conclusion: Canada is losing control of its political story, and Manitoba is far more exposed than we like to admit.
We often imagine ourselves as observers of political upheaval elsewhere — the U.S., Europe, even Alberta.
But the document lays out a sprawling, coordinated ecosystem of think tanks, influencers, strategists, and international organizations that is already shaping political attitudes across the Prairies. Manitoba is not an exception. In many ways, we’re a prime target.
The report describes a pipeline of influence that begins with global organizations like the International Democracy Union and the Atlas Network. These groups are not fringe. They are well funded, deeply connected, and explicitly designed to shape political outcomes across borders. Their Canadian partners translate global ideological projects into local messaging, policy proposals, and campaign strategies.
But the most concerning part isn’t the international influence — it’s the domestic machinery built to amplify it.
The Canada Strong and Free Network acts as a central hub linking donors, strategists, and political operatives. Around it sits a constellation of digital media outlets and influencer accounts that specialize in outrage driven content. They take think tank talking points, strip out nuance, and convert them into viral narratives designed to provoke anger rather than understanding.
CAHN’s analysis reinforces this point. The report describes Canada’s far right ecosystem as “coordinated and emboldened,” with actors who deliberately craft emotionally charged narratives meant to overwhelm rather than inform. They operate what the report characterizes as an “outrage feedback loop,” where sensational claims spread faster than journalists or researchers can contextualize them. The goal is not persuasion through evidence, but domination through repetition.
This is not healthy democratic debate.
It is a parallel information system engineered to overwhelm journalism, distort public perception, and create the illusion of widespread grassroots demand. And because these groups operate outside formal political structures, they face far fewer transparency requirements. Manitobans have no clear way of knowing who funds them, who directs them, or what their longterm objectives are.
If this feels abstract, look closer to home.
Manitoba has become fertile ground for these networks. Our province has a long history of political moderation, but also deep economic anxieties — especially in rural communities, resource dependent regions, and areas hit hard by demographic change. These are precisely the conditions that make disinformation ecosystems effective.
When people feel unheard, the loudest voices win.
We saw hints of this during the pandemic, when convoy aligned groups found strong support in parts of Manitoba. We see it now in the rise of local influencers who echo national talking points almost in real time. And we see it in the growing hostility toward institutions — from public health to the CBC — that once formed the backbone of civic trust in this province.
CAHN’s research also shows how quickly these networks can grow. Some nationalist groups have seen membership spikes of more than 60 percent in short periods, driven by targeted digital campaigns that exploit economic uncertainty and cultural anxiety. These surges are not organic. They are engineered.
The document also highlights the rise of explicitly exclusionary nationalist groups promoting ideas like “remigration,” a euphemism for mass deportation of nonEuropean immigrants. These groups remain small, but Manitoba’s demographic reality — a province where immigration is essential to economic survival — makes their presence especially dangerous. When extremist ideas begin to circulate within mainstream political networks, they gain a legitimacy they have not earned.
Even more troubling is how these ideas migrate.
CAHN warns that concepts once confined to fringe spaces are now being repackaged in sanitized language and pushed through influencers, think tanks, and political operatives seeking legitimacy. When these narratives appear alongside conventional policy debates, they gain a veneer of normalcy that obscures their origins.
None of this means Manitoba is on the brink of political collapse.
Our institutions remain resilient, and our political culture is still fundamentally moderate. But sovereignty is not just about borders or military power. It is also about information — who controls it, who manipulates it, and who benefits from its distortion. When opaque networks shape public opinion through coordinated disinformation, that sovereignty erodes.
CAHN’s broader warning is that trust itself is under attack. Farright networks intentionally target public institutions — media, universities, public health agencies, cultural organizations — because weakening trust creates a vacuum they can fill with their own narratives. A democracy becomes vulnerable when people no longer share a common set of facts.
The danger is not that Manitoba will suddenly adopt the politics of another country. The danger is that we will drift into a political environment shaped by forces we don’t see, don’t understand, and cannot hold accountable. A democracy cannot function if its information ecosystem is captured by actors who thrive on outrage, opacity, and division.
The solution is not censorship. It is transparency. It is rebuilding trust in journalism. It is demanding higher standards from the organizations that shape our political discourse. Manitobans deserve to know who is influencing their democracy and why.
We are not immune.
And believing we are immune is the most dangerous illusion of all.

By HENRY SREBRNIK We think of the period between 1948 and 1967 as one where Israel was largely accepted by the international community and world opinion, in large part due to revulsion over the Nazi Holocaust. Whereas the Arabs in the former British Mandate of Palestine were, we are told, largely forgotten.

But that’s actually not true. Israel declared its independence on May 14,1948 and fought for its survival in a war lasting almost a year into 1949. A consequence was the expulsion and/or flight of most of the Arab population. In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, millions of other people across the world were also driven from their homes, and boundaries were redrawn in Europe and Asia that benefited the victorious states, to the detriment of the defeated countries. That is indeed forgotten.

Israel was not admitted to the United Nations until May 11, 1949. Admission was contingent on Israel accepting and fulfilling the obligations of the UN Charter, including elements from previous resolutions like the November 29, 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan to create Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. This became a dead letter after Israel’s War of Independence. The victorious Jewish state gained more territory, while an Arab state never emerged. Those parts of Palestine that remained outside Israel ended up with Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank). They were occupied by Israel in 1967, after another defensive war against Arab states.

And even at that, we should recall, UN support for the 1947 partition plan came from a body at that time dominated by Western Europe and Latin American states, along with a Communist bloc temporarily in favour of a Jewish entity, at a time when colonial powers were in charge of much of Asia and Africa. Today, such a plan would have had zero chance of adoption. 

After all, on November 10, 1975, the General Assembly, by a vote of 72 in favour, 35 against, with 32 abstentions, passed Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism “a form of racism.” Resolution 3379 officially condemned the national ideology of the Jewish state. Though it was rescinded on December 16, 1991, most of the governments and populations in these countries continue to support that view.

As for the Palestinian Arabs, were they forgotten before 1967? Not at all. The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, stating that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” This is the so-called right of return demanded by Israel’s enemies.

As well, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was established Dec. 8, 1949. UNRWA’s mandate encompasses Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war and subsequent conflicts, as well as their descendants, including legally adopted children. More than 5.6 million Palestinians are registered with UNRWA as refugees. It is the only UN agency dealing with a specific group of refugees. The millions of all other displaced peoples from all other wars come under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Yet UNRWA has more staff than the UNHRC.

But the difference goes beyond the anomaly of two structures and two bureaucracies. In fact, they have two strikingly different mandates. UNHCR seeks to resettle refugees; UNRWA does not. When, in 1951, John Blanford, UNRWA’s then-director, proposed resettling up to 250,000 refugees in nearby Arab countries, those countries reacted with rage and refused, leading to his departure. The message got through. No UN official since has pushed for resettlement.

Moreover, the UNRWA and UNHCR definitions of a refugee differ markedly. Whereas the UNHCR services only those who’ve actually fled their homelands, the UNRWA definition covers “the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948,” without any generational limitations.

Israel is the only country that’s the continuous target of three standing UN bodies established and staffed solely for the purpose of advancing the Palestinian cause and bashing Israel — the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN’s Department of Political Affairs.

Israel is also the only state whose capital city, Jerusalem, with which the Jewish people have been umbilically linked for more than 3,000 years, is not recognized by almost all other countries.

So from its very inception until today, Israel has been treated differently than all other states, even those, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Sudan, immersed in brutal civil wars from their very inception. Newscasts, when reporting about the West Bank, use the term Occupied Palestinian Territories, though there are countless such areas elsewhere on the globe. 

Even though Israel left Gaza in September 2005 and is no longer in occupation of the strip (leading to its takeover by Hamas, as we know), this has been contested by the UN, which though not declaring Gaza “occupied” under the legal definition, has referred to Gaza under the nomenclature of “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” It seems Israel, no matter what it does, can’t win. For much of the world, it is seen as an “outlaw” state.

Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.

New market launches play a critical role in shaping how investors plan, diversify, and execute their financial strategies. When a company transitions from private ownership to public trading, it creates fresh opportunities for capital participation, valuation discovery, and long-term growth assessment. An upcoming IPO often attracts retail and institutional investors alike, as it offers an opportunity to invest at an early public stage. These launches influence market sentiment, sector momentum, and portfolio allocation decisions, making them an important consideration for anyone seeking to align investment strategies with evolving market dynamics. Understanding how new listings affect pricing, risk, and long-term potential helps investors make more informed, disciplined choices.

Understanding the Role of New Market Launches

New market launches introduce fresh capital, innovation, and competition into public markets. They often signal broader economic trends and provide insights into emerging sectors. For investors, these launches are more than just new tickers—they shape market behavior and strategic planning.

● Expanding Market Opportunities

New listings expand the investable universe by introducing companies that were previously inaccessible. This allows investors to explore new industries, technologies, or business models, helping diversify portfolios and reduce reliance on mature or saturated sectors.

● Price Discovery and Valuation Dynamics

Initial listings go through a price-discovery phase in which demand and supply determine valuation. This process can create short-term volatility but also offers strategic entry points for investors who understand fundamentals and market sentiment.

● Capital Flow Redistribution

When new companies enter the market, capital often shifts from existing stocks to new offerings. This redistribution can influence sector performance and temporarily affect broader indices, thereby altering portfolio allocation strategies.

● Reflection of Economic Confidence

A steady flow of new listings often reflects positive economic sentiment and business confidence. Investors monitor these signals to gauge market health and adjust their equity exposure accordingly.

● Increased Market Liquidity

New launches contribute to overall market liquidity by increasing the number of tradable shares. Increased liquidity improves price efficiency and offers investors more flexibility in executing trades.

How New Listings Shape Investor Decision-Making

Investment strategies are not static; they evolve based on market conditions and available opportunities. New market launches influence how investors assess risk, timing, and portfolio balance.

● Risk Assessment and Appetite

Newly listed companies may carry higher uncertainty due to limited public financial history. Investors must evaluate their risk tolerance and decide whether early exposure aligns with their overall strategy.

● Portfolio Diversification

Including new listings can enhance diversification by adding exposure to different revenue models or growth stages. This helps balance portfolios that may be overly concentrated in established companies.

● Short-Term vs Long-Term Strategies

Some investors seek short-term gains driven by listing momentum, while others focus on long-term value creation. Understanding this distinction helps align new investments with broader financial goals.

● Sector Rotation Strategies

New listings often emerge from high-growth sectors. Investors may rotate capital into these sectors early, anticipating future expansion and innovation-led growth.

● Behavioral Influence on Markets

Public interest and media coverage surrounding new listings can influence investor behavior. Awareness of sentiment-driven movements helps investors avoid emotional decision-making.

Evaluating New Market Launches Effectively

Not all new listings present equal opportunities. A structured evaluation framework helps investors separate strong prospects from speculative risks.

● Business Model Strength

Understanding how a company generates revenue and maintains profitability is a fundamental part of evaluating new market entrants. A well-defined business model shows how products or services create value for customers and how that value is monetized. Scalable models, diversified revenue streams, and predictable income sources often indicate stronger resilience and long-term investment potential, especially in competitive or evolving industries.

● Financial Transparency

Clear and detailed financial disclosures help investors assess a company’s overall health and risk profile. Reviewing revenue growth, operating margins, debt obligations, and cash flow stability provides insight into financial discipline and sustainability. Transparent reporting practices reflect management accountability and reduce uncertainty, enabling investors to make informed decisions based on reliable data rather than speculation.

● Competitive Positioning

A company’s ability to compete effectively within its industry is a key determinant of future performance. Investors analyze market share, differentiation strategies, pricing power, and barriers to entry to understand competitive advantages. Strong positioning suggests the company can defend its market position, withstand competitive pressures, and capitalize on emerging opportunities over time.

● Management and Governance

Leadership quality plays a crucial role in long-term value creation. Experienced executives with a track record of execution, combined with robust corporate governance structures, signal operational credibility. Transparent decision-making, independent oversight, and ethical practices help reduce risk and align management actions with shareholder interests, particularly for newly listed companies.

● Growth Sustainability

While rapid expansion can attract attention, sustainable growth is what supports lasting returns. Investors assess whether realistic assumptions, operational capacity, and consistent market demand support growth projections. Balanced expansion strategies that prioritize profitability, efficiency, and long-term planning are often viewed as more reliable than aggressive growth that strains resources or increases financial risk.

Strategic Timing and Market Conditions

The success of an upcoming IPO is closely linked to strategic timing and prevailing market conditions, which significantly influence investor response and post-listing performance. Market sentiment plays a decisive role, as optimistic, growth-driven environments often generate strong demand for new listings, supporting positive price momentum after debut. In contrast, cautious or volatile markets can suppress enthusiasm, limiting upside potential even for fundamentally strong companies. Alongside sentiment, macroeconomic factors such as interest rate trends, monetary policy direction, and fiscal measures shape capital allocation decisions. Lower interest rates generally encourage investors to seek growth opportunities through IPOs, while tighter policy conditions may dampen risk appetite. Together, timing, sentiment, and policy context form a critical framework for investors to evaluate entry strategies for upcoming IPOs.

Conclusion

New market launches have a meaningful influence on investment strategies by introducing fresh opportunities, shifting capital flows, and shaping market sentiment. From diversification and growth exposure to timing and risk management, these listings require thoughtful evaluation and disciplined execution. By understanding their broader impact and aligning participation with financial goals, investors can integrate new opportunities into well-structured portfolios while maintaining balance and long-term focus.